UK Laws Regulating Vitamin Sales Ruled Invalid
By David Derbyshire and David Rennie The Telegraph - UK - 6
April 2005
The British health food industry claimed a major victory yesterday
after controversial laws to tighten up the sale of vitamin pills
and health supplements were declared invalid.
The interim advice, issued by a senior judge at the European Court
of Justice in Luxembourg, found that the legislation failed to protect
the rights of individuals and firms seeking to have products declared
safe for sale.
It was also scathing about the way the rules were drawn up, calling
them "as transparent as a black box".
If the legal opinion is accepted by the full court, then much of
the EU's Food Supplements Directive due to come into force in August
may have to be rewritten.
The declaration followed a legal challenge from British campaigners
who argued that the new rules would lead to thousands of common
food supplements being banned. "It is a very substantial victory
and it's a crowbar in the door," said Dr Robert Verkerk, a
spokesman for the Alliance for Natural Health.
The Food Supplements Directive was designed to standardise vitamin,
mineral and food supplements, which are taken by about 43 per cent
of Britons. Under the new rules, only ingredients on an approved
list could be used in supplements. There would also be restrictions
on the upper limits of vitamin doses.
The industry was given until July 12 to submit detailed scientific
dossiers proving that their ingredients were safe.
Supporters of the legislation said it would protect consumers who
bought food supplements without any guarantees about quality or
safety.
Critics, who included Carole Caplin, the former health and beauty
adviser to Cherie Blair, said the rules were unnecessary and would
lead to 5,000 products being banned.
The British Health Food Manufacturers Association, the National
Association of Health Stores and Alliance for Natural Health, which
launched the challenge, said the costs of complying were too high
for small companies.
In his advice to the European Court of Justice, Leendert Geelhoed,
the advocate general, backed the principle of an approved list.
But he said the wording of the directive was "seriously deficient"
and infringed basic legal and administrative principles.
It lacked clearly-defined rules and norms for the European Commission
to follow when deciding which products to add to the list. It was
also unclear whether manufacturers would be able to submit products
for evaluation, he said.
"The directive does not comply with essential requirements
of legal protection, of legal certainty and of sound administration,
which are basic principles of Community law," he said. "Thus
it is lacking appropriate and transparent procedures for its application,
and the directive infringes the principle of proportionality. It
is therefore invalid."
The full court is expected to reach a verdict in a few months time.
However, in most cases, judges follow the advice of the advocate
general.
Andrew Lockley, from the solicitors Irwin Mitchell, the legal adviser
to the HFMA and NAHS, said: "It is encouraging that the advocate
general has supported our view that the directive does not provide
a fair mechanism for the regulation of food supplements."
Peter Aldis, the managing director of the health food chain Holland
& Barrett, said: "The opinion is a scathing indictment
of this shoddy piece of legislation. "The court's conclusions
show the European Commission and those who agreed this flawed regulation
in an extremely bad light.
"The Prime Minister must now intervene to ensure that all the
ingredients that would otherwise come off the UK market in July
are protected by the immediate submission of the necessary dossiers
to Europe by the Food Standards Agency."
Chris Grayling, the shadow health minister, said: "This is
not the final ruling, but I am confident that we are in a position
where we're close to winning the battle to scrap this controversial
measure."
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2005.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/xml=
|
